PEOPLE v TOUKYO

People of the Philippines vs Pala Toukyo y Padep

G.R.No. 225593

March 20, 2017

FACTS:

On November 22, 2010, the PDEA-CAR (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency) conducted buy-bust operation against the appellant at the area of Burnham Park, Baguio City wherein PDEA agent Peralta, John Kay-an (Agent Kay-an) and Santino Awichen (Agent Awichen) were the elements of the buy-bust team to entrap the appellant. During their transaction, appellant showed to agent Peralta who acted as the poseur buyer the brick of marijuana thus the latter executed the pre-arranged signal to his back-up, leading to the arrest of the appellant. On November 23, 2010, an information was filed before the RTC charging appellant of illegal sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5 of  R.A.9165.In a decision dated March 6, 2012, the RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and accordingly, sentence the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of Php 5,000,000.00. The RTC found that the PDEA –CAR agents successfully executed a buy-bust operation which resulted to the arrest of the appellant. Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals and in a decision dated July 3, 2015, the CA modified the appellant conviction finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under section 11 of R.A. 9165 and accordingly sentence him the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php 500,000.00.Contrary to the RTC’s findings, the CA ruled that there was no valid buy-bust operation took place, especially in the light of the fact that upon seeing the brick of marijuana, agent Peralta prematurely executed the pre-arranged signal which led to Toukyo’s arrest.Since no actual transaction took place before Toukyo’s arrest, he cannot be convicted of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Hence, instant appeal was made to Supreme Court. At the outset, it appears in the records that in a letter dated January 26, 2017 , the Director General of Bureau of Corrections informed the court that the appellant had already died on October 15, 2014. The letter were supported by a certification issued by Bureau Officer-in-Charge for its rehabilitation operation division as well as death report issued by Medical Officer III of the Bureau.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11 of R.A. 9165.

HELD:

The criminal case against the appellant including the instant appeal, is hereby dismissed.

The court cited the Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code paragraph 1 thereof states that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

The court also cited the case of People vs Bayotas, the Court eloquently summed up the effects of the death of an accused pending appeal on his liabilities, as follows:

1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:a)Law  b)Contractsc)Quasi-contracts d)xxx e)Quasi-delicts.

3.   Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefore     may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same which the same is based as explained above.

4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.

Thus, upon Toukyo's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand  as the accused. Notably,   there is  no civil liability that arose from this case, there being no private complainant to begin with.

Wherefore, the Court resolves to: (a) set aside the appealed decision dated July 3, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.CR HC No. 05510; (b) dismiss Criminal Case No. 31270-R before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61 by reason of the death of accused-appellant Pala Toukyo y Padep; and (c) declare the instant case closed and terminated. No costs.